Reserved on: 22.09.2025 Delivered on: 26.09.2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. RAVINDRA MAITHANI

AND

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. ALOK MAHRA

Special Appeal No. 150 of 2019

22^nd September, 2025

Prempal Singh ………Appellant

Versus

State of Uttarakhand

And Others ….…Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. C.D. Bahuguna, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Chandra Shekhar

Dalakoti, learned counsel for the appellant.

Mr. G.S. Negi, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the State.

Mr. I.D. Paliwal, learned Standing Counsel for the State of U.P.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Coram: Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.

Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.

Per: Alok Mahra, J.

The present Special Appeal has been filed by the

appellant for setting aside the judgment and order dated 12.12.2018 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2438 of 2018, Prem Pal Singh Vs. State with further prayer to allow the Writ Petition and grant all consequential

benefits of service including retiral and pensionary benefits.

2. Brief facts of the case are as hereunder:- That the petitioner was appointed as Constable in

Civil Police of the State (Uttar Pradesh) in the year 1977; that respondent no. 4 passed an order dated 10.12.1997, whereby, the petitioner was placed under

suspension. The grounds, on which the petitioner was put under suspension, was that when petitioner along with other Policemen, was taking under-trial prisoners from Sub-Jail, Haldwani for producing them before the Court of Kashipur, petitioner gave sufficient opportunity to one of the prisoners namely Manoj @ Ghantoori so that he may telephonically threaten the Former M.L.A. of Kashipur Rajeev Agarwal. Besides this, he provided liquor to prisoners Jaswinder Singh @ Jassa and Shamim.

That only eleven days after the order of suspension, respondent no. 4 passed an order dated 21.12.1997, whereby, the services of the petitioner were dismissed by invoking the provisions of Rule 8(2) Proviso (b) of the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rule, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1991’).

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

4. The main ground canvassed by the petitioner in the Writ Petition was that the dismissal order has been passed by respondent no. 4 without following the principles of natural justice and without holding any departmental inquiry, as contemplated under Rule 14 and 16 of the Rules of 1991. After reorganization of the State of U.P., the Writ Petition was transferred to this Hon’ble Court and by the impugned judgment and order dated 12.12.2018, the Writ Petition was dismissed. The learned Single Judge has held that Disciplinary Authority has recorded reasons for not holding regular inquiry and has found no error in the order.

5. Mr. C.D. Bahuguna, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that Rule 4(1)(a) of the Rules of 1991 defines major penalty namely (i) dismissal from service; (ii) Removal from service; (iii) Reduction in rank including reduction to a lower-

scale or to a lower stage in a time scale.

6. Rule 5 of the Rules of 1991 lays down the procedure for award of punishment, which is quoted as hereunder:-

“5. Procedure for award of punishment.- (1) The cases in which major punishments enumerated in clause (a) of sub- rule (1) of Rule 4 may be awarded, shall be dealt with in accordance with the procedure laid down in sub-rule (1) of Rule 14.

(2) The cases in which minor punishments enumerated in clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 may be awarded, shall be dealt with in accordance with the procedure laid down in sub-rule (2) of Rule 14.

(3) The cases in which minor penalties mentioned in sub- rules (2) and (3) of Rule 4 may be awarded shall be dealt with in accordance with the procedure laid down in Rule

15.”

7. Rule 14 of the Rules of 1991 lays down the procedure for conducting departmental proceedings, which is quoted as hereunde